URB #510 established that genuine philosophical neutrality is unavailable and that "always being right" is an idealization rather than an achievable human state. A precise objection arises: some people demonstrably ace practically every assignment, achieve near-perfect records of factual accuracy, and outperform their peers across diverse cognitive domains through **superior metacognition** — the calibrated ability to know what they know and what they do not. These individuals ARE almost always right in the domain of facts. The thesis of URB #510 applies to *philosophical* commitments; empirical accuracy is structurally different. The present paper establishes: (1) metacognitive superiority is a real, measurable trait that confers near-systematic factual accuracy; (2) this accuracy is formally equivalent to a high Logical Coherence Coefficient (LCC); (3) these individuals are routinely refused employment and recognition because institutions are optimized for **social calibration** rather than truth calibration; and (4) the refusal mechanism is itself a Double Tralse Type 1 error (Maximal Incoherence): institutions claim to want accuracy while systematically selecting against the trait that produces it.
Brandon Charles Emerick (Wed,) studied this question.